Incentive Capital v. Camelot Entertainment Group et al

Filing 79

REPLY to Response to Motion re 67 MOTION Reconsider Order on Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendant Ted Baer's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction re 65 Order on Motion for Extension of Time, MOTION Reconsider Order on Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendant Ted Baer's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction re 65 Order on Motion for Extension of Time, filed by Defendant Ted Baer. (James, Dennis)

Dennis R. James, No. 1642
Brian H. Hess, No. 10313
MORGAN, MINNOCK, RICE & JAMES, L.C.
Kearns Building, Eighth Floor
136 South Main Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101
Telephone No.: [phone]
Facsimile No.: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant Ted Baer

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

INCENTIVE CAPITAL, LLC, a Utah Limited
Liability Company,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CAMELOT ENTERTAINMENT GROUP,
INC., a Delaware Corporation; CAMELOT
FILM GROUP, INC., a Nevada Corporation;
CAMELOT DISTRIBUTION GROUP, INC., a
Nevada Corporation; ROBERT P. ATWELL, an
individual; JAMIE R. THOMPSON, an
individual; STEVEN ISTOCK, an individual;
TED BAER, an individual; PETER JAROWEY,
an individual,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

REPLY MEMORANDUM ON
DEFENDANT TED BAER’S
MOTION TO RECONSIDER
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF
TIME TO RESPOND TO
DEFENDANT TED BAER’S
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR
LACK OF JURISDICTION AND
REQUEST TO SUBMIT
DEFENDANT TED BAER’S
MOTION FOR DECISION

Civil No. 2:11-CV-00288
Honorable Clark Waddoups

Defendant Ted Baer, appearing specially, submits the following reply memorandum on
Defendant Ted Baer’s Motion to Reconsider Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to

Respond to Defendant Ted Baer’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and hereby requests
that Defendant Ted Baer’s Motion to Dismiss be submitted for decision.
ARGUMENT
Plaintiff Incentive argued in opposition to Defendant Ted Baer’s Motion to Reconsider that
reconsideration of the Court’s July 1, 2011 Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to
Respond to Defendant Ted Baer’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction was unnecessary
because (1) the July 27, 2011 deadline for the Atwell Defendants to answer Plaintiff Incentive’s
complaint was approaching and (2) that Plaintiff’s response to Defendant Ted Baer’s Motion to
Dismiss would be due just five days after the July 27, 2011 deadline. As it turns out, the Atwell
Defendants did in fact file their Answer and Counterclaim of Camelot Entertainment Group, Inc.,
Camelot Film Group, Inc., Camelot Distribution Group, Inc., Robert P. Atwell, Jamie R.
Thompson, and Steven Istock to Amended Complaint on July 27, 2011, on time and as required by
the July 1, 2011 Order. By timely filing their answer on July 27, 2011, the Atwell Defendants
triggered the five-day period for Plaintiff Incentive to respond to Defendant Ted Baer’s Motion to
Dismiss, which period expired, August 1, 2011 or, at the very latest on August 3, 2011.
Because the Atwell Defendants did not seek any additional extensions to the July 27, 2011
deadline for filing their answer, Defendant Ted Baer’s arguments opposing the extension and
requesting the court reconsider the July 1, 2011 Order are now moot. Defendant Ted Baer’s
opposition to the extension was primarily based on the possibility that the Atwell Defendants
would continue to seek extensions beyond the July 27, 2011 deadline and thereby potentially
continue to extend the five-day deadline for Plaintiff Incentive’s response to Defendant Ted Baer’s

Motion to Dismiss for an indeterminate amount of time. Defendant Ted Baer did not want to be
kept personally involved in litigation that is improper for lack of jurisdiction based solely on
delays caused by other parties seeking continued extensions, when his Motion to Dismiss should
be determined separate from any of the other defendants.
Because the Atwell Defendants answered on July 27, 2011, and because the five-day
deadline set by the July 1, 2011 Order for Plaintiff Incentive to respond to Defendant Ted Baer’s
Motion to Dismiss expired on August 1, 2011 or, at the very latest, August 3, 2011, without any
response in opposition having been filed by Plaintiff Incentive, Defendant Ted Baer requests that
the Court now grant Defendant Ted Baer’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint for
Lack of Personal Jurisdiction.
DATED this 3rd day of August, 2011.
MORGAN, MINNOCK, RICE & JAMES, L.C.

/s/ Dennis R. James
Dennis R. James
Brian H. Hess
Counsel for Defendant Ted Baer

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 3rd day of August, 2011, I electronically filed a true and correct
copy of the foregoing REPLY MEMORANDUM ON DEFENDANT TED BAER’S MOTION
TO RECONSIDER ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT TED BAER’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF
JURISDICTION AND REQUEST TO SUBMIT DEFENDANT TED BAER’S MOTION
FOR DECISION with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which sent notification of
such filing to the following:
Wayne G. Petty
Joseph G. Pia
MOYLE & DRAPER, P.C.
Nathan S. Dorius
[e-mail]
PIA ANDERSON DORIUS REYNARD &
Attorneys for Defendant Peter Jarowey
MOSS, PLLC
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
John A. Snow
Karen E. O’Brien
VAN COTT BAGLEY CORNWALL &
McCARTHY
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants Camelot, Atwell,
Thompson and Istock

Marc E. Kasowitz
David J. Shapiro
KASOWITZ, BENSON, TORRES &
FRIEDMAN LLP
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant Peter Jarowey

Jonathan M. Levitan
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants Camelot, Atwell,
Thompson and Istock

/s/ Lynette Ambrose